Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 7 questioned both exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke and the U.S. regarding the exporter's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate and the Commerce Department's use of Dillinger's sales price as the cost of production for non-prime steel plate. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Timothy Dyk and Alan Lourie's questions regarding the non-prime plate centered on whether the issue was foreclosed by the CAFC's previous holding in Dillinger France v. U.S. (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

CBP cannot unilaterally decide to reliquidate entries that were erroneously liquidated while subject to a suspension order from the Court of International Trade, the trade court held on May 8. Judge Gary Katzmann said an "enjoined party is not empowered to choose and implement the remedy for its own violations of an injunction," writing that that power is the court's alone.

President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs fail to satisfy the International Emergency Economic Powers Act's requirements by failing to identify an "unusual and extraordinary" threat in relying on "longstanding trade policy problems," 12 states, led by Oregon and Arizona, argued. Submitting a motion for a preliminary injunction against all tariffs imposed under IEEPA, the states also said the reciprocal tariffs, and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, don't "deal with" the threats they identify (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

The Commerce Department properly relied on respondent Shakti Forge Industries' reported costs in the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India, the Court of International Trade held on May 6. Sustaining the investigation after two remands, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce permissibly found Shakti's costs to be accurate after conducting an in-person verification of the respondent's facilities during the second remand period.

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pressed both respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl and the U.S. in an antidumping duty case regarding the use of partial adverse facts available against Salzgitter for its failure to provide manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

No national emergency or "unusual and extraordinary threat" exists to justify invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on all U.S. trading partners, the Liberty Justice Center argued. Filing its reply brief in support of its bid for both a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade, the conservative legal advocacy group argued that the trade court can review President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 5 sharply questioned importer Valeo North America's argument that the Commerce Department improperly included its T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. During a May 5 oral argument, Judges Todd Hughes, Richard Taranto and Kara Stoll pressed Valeo on its claim that Commerce distorted the scope language (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).

A group of five small importers filed their opposition to the U.S. government's motion to transfer their case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The importers, led by Simplified, argued that CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case because IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Emily Ley Paper v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's claim that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court, the U.S. argued. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on May 2, the government said Eteros' claim revolves around two "immigration-related matters," which CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).